Koh Tao: Suspects found guilty of murdering British backpackers

[bunglebag]

Follow

Andy Hall‏@Atomicalandy

Thai Gov - Koh Tao verdict will be trialed further and no need for re-trial

I'm struggling to comprehend what this means exactly. Can someone explain?

Edited December 29, 2015 by bunglebag

[MrTee]

OK, if she was that useful to the defence - then tell me how! Come on, what did she do or say to benefit them?

Provide me with something of substance and I will withdraw my criticism.

Without doubt Dr Taupin is an international authority on forensic science.

We are told she came to Thailand at her own expense and gave her time pro bono.

She was the defense's adviser in that subject.

Had she been called as a witness it would done credit to Monty Python.

The Judge: "Why are you here Dr Taupin?"

" Not sure your honour"

"Why is that?"

" Because I did intend to talk to the court about DNA, but I am not going to now"

" Why?"

" Because your honour there is no DNA, there was, but that was a long time ago. What used to be DNA associated with this case has since been lost, used up,gone mouldy, put in the wrong jar,mislabelled, misplaced, put in the wrong fridge, the headman doesn't know who stole it, gone walkabout, ....... John Cleese would have a field day!!

My post stands!!

Such a meta post

Sir, you have surpassed Monty Python at their very best - Well played

[MrTee]

Follow

Andy Hall‏@Atomicalandy

Thai Gov - Koh Tao verdict will be trialed further and no need for re-trial

I'm struggling to comprehend what this means exactly. Can someone explain?

Explanation as I see it.

We have further opportunity to ratify a bizarre decision, no need to balance check..

TL;DR

do not look;do not ask; do you know who I am.

[MrTee]

OK, your view that the evidence was flimsy, I believe it to be solid and irrefutable.

There it is, in a nutshell.

Either you have A) no knowledge of the RTP's history vis-a-vis fabricating evidence, B - no understanding of what irrefutable DNA evidence looks like, C) are just here to wind us up, or D) all of the above.

I choose D. So come on Lucky, which is it then?

I'mma Guess : D!

[bunglebag]

Follow

Andy Hall‏@Atomicalandy

Thai Gov - Koh Tao verdict will be trialed further and no need for re-trial

I'm struggling to comprehend what this means exactly. Can someone explain?

Explanation as I see it.

We have further opportunity to ratify a bizarre decision, no need to balance check..

TL;DR

do not look;do not ask; do you know who I am.

Thanks but that makes it no clearer to me! Can anyone translate to plain English?

[MrTee]

how do you know it was Davids phone, again I find myself repeating what has been already discussed on this and other forums

There were 2 phones - one from the crime scene and displayed on TV footage long before any arrests were made - how do you know the IMEI number the police had checked was not from that phone - take their word for it ......right ? and what happened to that phone, surely it should have been investigated as to who owned it - yet another unexplained mystery connected with these murders

Might I also add, a beach at night is very dark unless there is a moon, I just wonder how close you would have needed to be to find the two bodies that seem to have been concealed behind some rocks, if no moon then you could in fact be feet away and not notice them, and I am not kidding.

I have been on many beaches at night and it is very dark, I once actually fell over courting couple in Greece who were lying right in the middle of the beach area, I didn't see them and fell right on top of them, the resort close to the crime scene likely had lights but the rocks would very likely have blocked those out , I contest that unless you were standing right on top of them, nobody would have seen these bodies until daybreak

There were 3 phones: Hannah's i phone (before the ruder she had asked a friend to hold on to it for a while - David's old Samusng with Thai SIM and David's i-phone (with UK Sim). David had left the Samsung in his room and was brought in by a friend.

And yes it can be very dark on a beach unless there is a moon, I just wonder how close you would have needed to be to find a phone lying in the sand...

It was a 3/4 moon

The very same Black iPhone 4 that the police "displayed" on 16th September - Found on the beach..

Not smashed, not found near B2s residence. That there are 2675 images on the interwebwez..

Either this one http://www.nationmultimedia.com/new/2014/09/23/national/images/30243922-01_big.jpg

or this one..

http://static.thaivisa.com/forum/uploads/monthly_10_2014/post-220854-0-22160600-1412584233.jpg

Take your pick!

[SiSePuede419]

Fact: There were multiple samples of DNA on the victim (not tested), inside the victim (supposedly) and on the alleged murder weapon.

Fact: Extracting DNA from mixed samples is difficult and time-consuming.

Fact: Germ cells (semen) only contains half your DNA (a random selection). So it definitely won't look like the same sequence of regular DNA.

23 & Me requires a half tablespoon of salivia. They admit that they can't extract enough DNA from this sample 3% of the time.

Yet, the "experts" in Thailand:

"A police officer testified those samples were received on the morning of 17 September and started DNA extraction at 08:00 local time. This seems unlikely as the pathologist only started his autopsy at 11:00. The successful profiling of two men was announced at around 22:00."

I take back what I said previously about the B2 taking advantage of a "crime of opportunity" to rape a deceased Farang female.

There is no way in hell this DNA evidence is legit for even rape, much less murder or the death penalty.

Edited December 29, 2015 by SiSePuede419

[bunglebag]

how do you know it was Davids phone, again I find myself repeating what has been already discussed on this and other forums

There were 2 phones - one from the crime scene and displayed on TV footage long before any arrests were made - how do you know the IMEI number the police had checked was not from that phone - take their word for it ......right ? and what happened to that phone, surely it should have been investigated as to who owned it - yet another unexplained mystery connected with these murders

Might I also add, a beach at night is very dark unless there is a moon, I just wonder how close you would have needed to be to find the two bodies that seem to have been concealed behind some rocks, if no moon then you could in fact be feet away and not notice them, and I am not kidding.

I have been on many beaches at night and it is very dark, I once actually fell over courting couple in Greece who were lying right in the middle of the beach area, I didn't see them and fell right on top of them, the resort close to the crime scene likely had lights but the rocks would very likely have blocked those out , I contest that unless you were standing right on top of them, nobody would have seen these bodies until daybreak

I originally believed the phone was planted by the police. Then it was revealed that indeed the b2 gave the phone to a friend that put it there,it never seemed to that it could be David's. But it is Wei Phyo own statement that he was back down at the beach at 5 o'clock in the morning and amazingly found a phone that changed my mind. What another coincidence? Not only were their clothes stolen while they swimming, but some strange person also left their phone on the beach, that Wei Phyo found. And that person has obviously not come forward to claim the phone, because they are afraid of the village headman. Lol, pull the other one, it plays jingle bells.

I was very busy during parts of the court case and could not follow parts of it closely unfortunately.

When you say 'it was revealed that indeed the B2 gave the phone to a friend' - are you talking about something said in court? or part of the alleged torture driven confession? or something else?

and same question regarding the part of your post that talks about Wei Phyo's statement that he found a phone at 5am that morning - was that what he said himself in court, or part of an earlier statement?

Ah I have found it mentioned in a news report. He said this in court then, although the news report I read did not mention a time. It says he said he found it some distance from the murder scene. Interesting, though not infeasible, and there must have been some light from somewhere as they would not have been playing guitar etc. earlier in pitch darkness.

[bunglebag]

how do you know it was Davids phone, again I find myself repeating what has been already discussed on this and other forums

There were 2 phones - one from the crime scene and displayed on TV footage long before any arrests were made - how do you know the IMEI number the police had checked was not from that phone - take their word for it ......right ? and what happened to that phone, surely it should have been investigated as to who owned it - yet another unexplained mystery connected with these murders

Might I also add, a beach at night is very dark unless there is a moon, I just wonder how close you would have needed to be to find the two bodies that seem to have been concealed behind some rocks, if no moon then you could in fact be feet away and not notice them, and I am not kidding.

I have been on many beaches at night and it is very dark, I once actually fell over courting couple in Greece who were lying right in the middle of the beach area, I didn't see them and fell right on top of them, the resort close to the crime scene likely had lights but the rocks would very likely have blocked those out , I contest that unless you were standing right on top of them, nobody would have seen these bodies until daybreak

There were 3 phones: Hannah's i phone (before the ruder she had asked a friend to hold on to it for a while - David's old Samusng with Thai SIM and David's i-phone (with UK Sim). David had left the Samsung in his room and was brought in by a friend.

And yes it can be very dark on a beach unless there is a moon, I just wonder how close you would have needed to be to find a phone lying in the sand...

It was a 3/4 moon

The very same Black iPhone 4 that the police "displayed" on 16th September - Found on the beach..

Not smashed, not found near B2s residence. That there are 2675 images on the interwebwez..

Either this one http://www.nationmultimedia.com/new/2014/09/23/national/images/30243922-01_big.jpg

or this one..

http://static.thaivisa.com/forum/uploads/monthly_10_2014/post-220854-0-22160600-1412584233.jpg

Take your pick!

More and more confusing! the i-phone shown there is clearly not smashed up

[MrTee]

Follow

Andy Hall‏@Atomicalandy

Thai Gov - Koh Tao verdict will be trialed further and no need for re-trial

I'm struggling to comprehend what this means exactly. Can someone explain?

Explanation as I see it.

We have further opportunity to ratify a bizarre decision, no need to balance check..

TL;DR

do not look;do not ask; do you know who I am.

Thanks but that makes it no clearer to me! Can anyone translate to plain English?

Sorry I was being facetious..

As I understand the big guy is saying there are still some judicial processes to be followed before a final judgement is made, therefore, no need to re-examine the case.

[bunglebag]

original post here as too deep to include properly:

AH Tweet - "Thai Gov - Koh Tao verdict will be trialed further and no need for re-trial"

I'm struggling to comprehend what this means exactly. Can someone explain?

Explanation as I see it.

We have further opportunity to ratify a bizarre decision, no need to balance check..

TL;DR

do not look;do not ask; do you know who I am.

Thanks but that makes it no clearer to me! Can anyone translate to plain English?

Sorry I was being facetious..

As I understand the big guy is saying there are still some judicial processes to be followed before a final judgement is made, therefore, no need to re-examine the case.

Thanks. the haze is clearing (I think)

big guy = AH, or Thai Gov?

final judgement = judgement after appeal?

[MrTee]

Explanation as I see it.

We have further opportunity to ratify a bizarre decision, no need to balance check..

TL;DR

do not look;do not ask; do you know who I am.

Thanks but that makes it no clearer to me! Can anyone translate to plain English?

Sorry I was being facetious..

As I understand the big guy is saying there are still some judicial processes to be followed before a final judgement is made, therefore, no need to re-examine the case.

Thanks. the haze is clearing (I think)

big guy = AH, or Thai Gov?

final judgement = judgement after appeal?

Big Guy, yes TH gov.

"Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwan said there is no need to re-investigate the murders of the two British tourists on Koh Tao, as the trial process was carried out according to the legal system. "

And yes, final Solution judgement..

[MrTee]

<snip>

repost after strange warnings and general software failings.

Edited December 29, 2015 by MrTee

[bunglebag]

Whilst digging out the info about Wei's statement about the phone I came across a guardian article (which is no rag newspaper) written 6 weeks after the murder by someone seemingly on location in Koh Tao at the time of writing .

It includes the following:

"The biggest contradiction centres around the deaths of Witheridge, 23, and Miller, 24 – the British backpackers brutally beaten on the head yards from their hotel, the former also raped, the latter left to drown in shallow surf. Just about everyone on Koh Tao insists visitors are safe, but many also agree, quietly, that the Burmese migrant workers arrested for the murders are innocent – meaning the real killer or killers remain at large."

I did hear (fairly directly) that there was 'talk' from Sairee the morning after the murder about what had happened. I wonder if it was this 'talk' that made the 'many' agree that the B2 were innocent. Who were the 'many', why did they believe B2 to be innocent?

Content further on in the article may relate to the 'talk':

"There are several counter theories circulating on Koh Tao about who killed Witheridge and Miller. Most centre around men associated with a dominant Thai family on the island, one of several that run dive schools, resorts and bars. A version recounted repeatedly - without any evidence - is that Witheridge had an argument with one of them at a beachside bar run by the family, shortly before the killings."

and there is much more interesting info in the article, a lot of which sounds like it came first hand to the reporter

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/23/briton-thailand-murder-hannah-witheridge-david-miller-mystery-mafia-fear

[bunglebag]

Sorry I was being facetious..

As I understand the big guy is saying there are still some judicial processes to be followed before a final judgement is made, therefore, no need to re-examine the case.

Thanks. the haze is clearing (I think)

big guy = AH, or Thai Gov?

final judgement = judgement after appeal?

Big Guy, yes TH gov.

"Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwan said there is no need to re-investigate the murders of the two British tourists on Koh Tao, as the trial process was carried out according to the legal system. "

And yes, final Solution judgement..

Thanks again.

So what does the 'trialed further' bit mean? - appeal?

[kcirtapyelrah]

Funny how the same old posters are gleefully carrying on with their "B2 are guilty " thread yet on all the other threads where the sham is being called into question and the government is being asked to clarify and thousands of people are demanding justice they are not saying anything. Funny that.

I say leave them to this thread - they are likely just currying favour with island power players for reasons of self interest - and look to what is happening today about this: unprecedented condemnation.

Hang on a mo. We are the ones that should be asking why you lot are carrying on with your 'they are not guilty' stance. Have you forgotten that they were found, guilty, already

I really, really do hope that one day you will find yourself at the mercy of the wonderful Thai judicial system, you never know what the future hold my dear fellow.

[DiscoDan]

WPs Alibi (not retracted confession) concerning the phone was he found it on the beach then gave it to his as it was locked then they heard about the murders so they destroyed it

What was not confirmed was who's phone it was,

The British government and the phone company are not allowed to give that information so Davids Dad took a screen print of davids computer which had the imei number

This was first brought to the courts attention when Andy hall took the stand but he never reported this or any of his journalist friends.

Then on the last day of the trial Sarah Yuen did a breaking sky news interview saying a package was delivered to court and it confirmed the phone belonged to David. (but this was just a translation from the embassy)

So now you can see we have not been getting the whole story.

Edited December 29, 2015 by DiscoDan

[MrTee]

WPs Alibi (not retracted confession) concerning the phone was he found it on the beach then gave it to his as it was locked then they heard about the murders so they destroyed it

What was not confirmed was who's phone it was,

The British government and the phone company are not allowed to give that information so Davids Dad took a screen print of davids computer which had the imei number

This was first brought to the courts attention when Andy hall took the stand but he never reported this or any of his journalist friends.

Then on the last day of the trial Sarah Yuen did a breaking sky news interview saying a package was delivered to court and it confirmed the phone belonged to David. (but this was just a translation from the embassy)

So now you can see we have not been getting the whole story.

Is the IMEI a match in same way the DNA is a match?

The same phone that was shown on 16th September (un-smashed), later re-found in the B2 residence and smashed, (but not the bit with the IMEI), The one same one in the running man's hand?

Well that clears everything up.

Add that to the "fact" that Andy Hall never reported it this shows clear guilt.

Well Done That Man - you cracked the case.

[DiscoDan]

So Andy claims that before the B2 were even arrested the Burmese community knew they were going to scapegoated?

Why would they contact Andy Hall and not another NGO does anyone know what Andy Hall was doing before he investigated the pineapple Factory for finnwatch ? and was then later charged with defamation.

"Shortly after the killings the migrant community started to tell us there was a lot of torture going on, a lot of abuse by the police,” recalled Andy Hall, a British activist who has lived in Thailand for a decade, mainly working with Burmese. “We sent a team down and interviewed the workers, and they were saying, ‘Help us, or they’re going to find a scapegoat.’ And then the Burmese men got arrested.”

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/23/briton-thailand-murder-hannah-witheridge-david-miller-mystery-mafia-fear

Edited December 29, 2015 by DiscoDan

[daveAustin]

End of corruption, blah blah etc etc etc? Well done Prayut, I hope you're happy the way your country is going! The sick man of Asia.

[Tom Cahill]

I must say I am amazed not one person on Koh Tao has shown remorse and has not spoken out (if persons of influence were involved)

Also the present administration has publcly backed the investigation and the subsequent trial verdict, whatever it thinks, the junta has many enimies, strong and influential ones, some based on foreign shores. If a misscaridge of justice has gone down....why the silence...this gives me a doubt about the Burmese inoocence.

Also the defence case in court was nothing short of pathetic. Was this down to shear incompitence or fear?

Hi Morris,

I'm not surprised at no remorse as if you're in a conspiracy to cover up a capital crime you probably have more important things to think about after setting people up and paying everyone off to worry about. Secondly, I think the level of thinking I've seen on here's quite naive, as the idea that their lawyers were acting in actual defence when the whole country's establishment's conducting a massive cover up, as they routinely do to protect tourism's totally and unquestionably a very poor indictment of them---on both sides. They do this EVERY DAY in EVERY COUNTRY.

Think of the logistics. If you're a gang trying to kill someone, would you do it in water up to your knees? I think sometimes the victims try and get away. Think more about this. If you're going to rape someone (if this happened), would you try it in a foot of water? Isn't that a bit hard to pull off? These bodies probably were moved. Think some more. If you were moving some bodies, would you really want to move them through a heavily populated area and then put them out in the open? Would you rape someone on a beach that's got people wandering about on, or would you do it in some bushes feet away?

Whilst this could well be a sadistic sex crime, ask yourself, is it a conventional one or a gang type related one? How many sex criminals do you know who target accompanied women? The only times I know of this is when it's a revenge thing that gangs do. They've then moved the bodies down there to make a statement. There's some greater motive behind this and as this "cover up" has managed to make world wide news everywhere, then the idea that it's been carried out to make the tourism better's quite hard to believe. Not all Thais have the brains of five year olds.

Then we have the British police breaking their rules and saying the case looks very strong. Why would they do this? What would be the benefit to them of lying and then getting in massive sh*t back home for causing the British government so much trouble? It's definitely not moral. It definitely doesn't help our police. And, it definitely doesn't help our government who're being attacked for it.

There's something big going on here, and this isn't the only case where it's gone on. Time and time again the official spokesman says something incredibly "stupid" and people take this at face value. In every country there's people who want to damage the country's various industries. There's both business and counter intelligence reasons for this, and often they're the same thing or cross over.

Could it be that a certain offshore interest who paid for the Blue Sky protests and the other colour revolutions in EVERY OTHER COUNTRY and Taksin probably works for, called George Soros be paying some people? They do seem to be able to get people to admit to shooting rockets into crowds in broad daylight and not having get away plans, Wouldn't you want to think about a get away plan if you were going to shoot rockets at crowds of people in broad daylight? I'd probably think of that one. Every second news story in the country that's broadcast abroad is smelling very fishy and they're all seeming to massively undermine the country? Isn't this all classic subversion? Thailand's got lots of nice stuff to steal. Don't certain people always spend a while subverting a country when they're planning to steal their stuff after a war? I know that's what I'd do if I were an evil megalomaniac.

If something big isn't happening, why would they be putting in place this massive draft bill through their government (who'll need weapons and transportation and logistical support, costing a fortune)? If I were in power, and nothing big was on the cards, I'd be more interest in low interest loans for farming equipment or for English teachers or work schemes for the older people who often just sit about doing nothing but drink all day. Couldn't they be doing something like working in factories? Governments do not do things to make them unpopular. They do things to impress people in general so they can get on with their own agendas. What possible agenda or public pleasing measures are they doing in setting up this mega draft which will cost them a fortune which all governments everywhere always say that they don't have enough of?

[bunglebag]

WPs Alibi (not retracted confession) concerning the phone was he found it on the beach then gave it to his as it was locked then they heard about the murders so they destroyed it

What was not confirmed was who's phone it was,

The British government and the phone company are not allowed to give that information so Davids Dad took a screen print of davids computer which had the imei number

This was first brought to the courts attention when Andy hall took the stand but he never reported this or any of his journalist friends.

Then on the last day of the trial Sarah Yuen did a breaking sky news interview saying a package was delivered to court and it confirmed the phone belonged to David. (but this was just a translation from the embassy)

So now you can see we have not been getting the whole story.

So a late screengrab from a civilian on the other side of the world (possibly biased depending on what he has been told by RTP etc. - David's brother certainly seemed to be very anti B2) is one of the things that the court and yourself have used as a basis for the verdict? I'm surprised something like this can even be used as evidence as it would be open to being doctored. I'm not saying it was at all, just that it would be possible without much difficulty so I'm surprised it was admissable (well in this particular case less so I suppose I am less surprised). Also probably not difficult for someone with knowledge to change the number in the application, or on the screen prior to screenshot also. I do hope RTP didn't tell what number they were looking for prior to receiving this. I'd feel more comfortable about it if had come from a more formal source. If all above board and if the alleged timeline of this particular phone was true then it could tie him in to finding the phone as he claimed, and the charge of theft of the phone.

Once a death sentence has been given does that then negate the reason that the UK govt / phone company etc cannot comply with such requests?

Edited December 29, 2015 by bunglebag

[Bluespunk]

This thread is getting lame...

It's normal to feel deflated after a victory!! I have lost the impetus to post now.

Victory? Is this how you see this thread? Something to be won? A contest?

You have "won" nothing, least of all the argument and certainly no respect.

[DiscoDan]

WPs Alibi (not retracted confession) concerning the phone was he found it on the beach then gave it to his as it was locked then they heard about the murders so they destroyed it

What was not confirmed was who's phone it was,

The British government and the phone company are not allowed to give that information so Davids Dad took a screen print of davids computer which had the imei number

This was first brought to the courts attention when Andy hall took the stand but he never reported this or any of his journalist friends.

Then on the last day of the trial Sarah Yuen did a breaking sky news interview saying a package was delivered to court and it confirmed the phone belonged to David. (but this was just a translation from the embassy)

So now you can see we have not been getting the whole story.

So a late screengrab from a civilian on the other side of the world (possibly biased depending on what he has been told by RTP etc. - David's brother certainly seemed to be very anti B2) is one of the things that the court and yourself have used as a basis for the verdict? I'm surprised something like this can even be used as evidence as it would be open to being doctored. I'm not saying it was at all, just that it would be possible without much difficulty so I'm surprised it was admissable (well in this particular case less so I suppose I am less surprised). Also probably not difficult for someone with knowledge to change the number in the application, or on the screen prior to screenshot also. I do hope RTP didn't tell what number they were looking for prior to receiving this. I'd feel more comfortable about it if had come from a more formal source. If all above board and if the alleged timeline of this particular phone was true then it could tie him in to finding the phone as he claimed, and the charge of theft of the phone.

Once a death sentence has been given does that then negate the reason that the UK govt / phone company etc cannot comply with such requests?

Even the defense are no longer arguing the that the phone isn't Davids so why are you ?

Do you really think the Millers are forging evidence ?

[SiSePuede419]

"How many sex criminals do you know who target accompanied women? The only times I know of this is when it's a revenge thing that gangs do."

I'm not an expert on sex criminals, but when I was in Guatemala, someone put a flyer up warning other travelers.

A group of 5 or 6 Europeans climbed up a volcano were confronted by armed men, who tried to rape one of the female members (at gunpoint).

When one of the male members of the group tried to stop it, he was shot dead.

Any other questions?

[catsanddogs]

I don't trust the story of the phone. We all know that there were photos of items of clothing scattered over the beach leaked out before the official police photos circulated on the web. The official photos showed the clothes in a neat pile minus some that were clearly present on the beach. They were placed as though Hannah and David might have taken them off themselves in order to get intimate. But this is clearly not the truth. The pre police photos would appear to show a struggle took place and that the clothes were ripped off the deceased while alive or dead. Someone got to the scene and changed it. No doubt they found a phone or two as well. Now why should we believe that the phone found at the B2's accommodation belonged David Miller when all the police have come up with is that the number provided by David's father matches? The phone that was found on the beach could have been anyone's phone. God knows the RTP had long enough to get their story together with the B2 conveniently silenced behind a glass screen with constant police presence when their lawyers were talking with them. When a phone gets smashed the information on the sim card is still available. Why didn't the police prove it was David's phone? Why no fingerprints? No fingerprints anywhere it seems. Did police say they didn't test the hoe for fingerprints?! Maybe it's time for police to take a few minutes now and look at that CCTV footage of the pier that they didn't think important last year. Surely they wouldn't have destroyed it ?

[bunglebag]

WPs Alibi (not retracted confession) concerning the phone was he found it on the beach then gave it to his as it was locked then they heard about the murders so they destroyed it

What was not confirmed was who's phone it was,

The British government and the phone company are not allowed to give that information so Davids Dad took a screen print of davids computer which had the imei number

This was first brought to the courts attention when Andy hall took the stand but he never reported this or any of his journalist friends.

Then on the last day of the trial Sarah Yuen did a breaking sky news interview saying a package was delivered to court and it confirmed the phone belonged to David. (but this was just a translation from the embassy)

So now you can see we have not been getting the whole story.

So a late screengrab from a civilian on the other side of the world (possibly biased depending on what he has been told by RTP etc. - David's brother certainly seemed to be very anti B2) is one of the things that the court and yourself have used as a basis for the verdict? I'm surprised something like this can even be used as evidence as it would be open to being doctored. I'm not saying it was at all, just that it would be possible without much difficulty so I'm surprised it was admissable (well in this particular case less so I suppose I am less surprised). Also probably not difficult for someone with knowledge to change the number in the application, or on the screen prior to screenshot also. I do hope RTP didn't tell what number they were looking for prior to receiving this. I'd feel more comfortable about it if had come from a more formal source. If all above board and if the alleged timeline of this particular phone was true then it could tie him in to finding the phone as he claimed, and the charge of theft of the phone.

Once a death sentence has been given does that then negate the reason that the UK govt / phone company etc cannot comply with such requests?

Even the defense are no longer arguing the that the phone isn't Davids so why are you ?

Do you really think the Millers are forging evidence ?

That's not what I said though is it? I have not accused anyone of anything like that, though I figured you would reply along those lines.

Call it devil's advocate if you like. I basically said that it didn't feel cast iron enough (to me anyway) to be used to help convict in a double murder trial and that a more official / authenticated source of this information would have been preferable to prove the link because this particular method is not tamper-proof.

[catsanddogs]

how do you know it was Davids phone, again I find myself repeating what has been already discussed on this and other forums

There were 2 phones - one from the crime scene and displayed on TV footage long before any arrests were made - how do you know the IMEI number the police had checked was not from that phone - take their word for it ......right ? and what happened to that phone, surely it should have been investigated as to who owned it - yet another unexplained mystery connected with these murders

Might I also add, a beach at night is very dark unless there is a moon, I just wonder how close you would have needed to be to find the two bodies that seem to have been concealed behind some rocks, if no moon then you could in fact be feet away and not notice them, and I am not kidding.

I have been on many beaches at night and it is very dark, I once actually fell over courting couple in Greece who were lying right in the middle of the beach area, I didn't see them and fell right on top of them, the resort close to the crime scene likely had lights but the rocks would very likely have blocked those out , I contest that unless you were standing right on top of them, nobody would have seen these bodies until daybreak

There were 3 phones: Hannah's i phone (before the ruder she had asked a friend to hold on to it for a while - David's old Samusng with Thai SIM and David's i-phone (with UK Sim). David had left the Samsung in his room and was brought in by a friend.

And yes it can be very dark on a beach unless there is a moon, I just wonder how close you would have needed to be to find a phone lying in the sand...

It was a 3/4 moon

The very same Black iPhone 4 that the police "displayed" on 16th September - Found on the beach..

Not smashed, not found near B2s residence. That there are 2675 images on the interwebwez..

Either this one http://www.nationmultimedia.com/new/2014/09/23/national/images/30243922-01_big.jpg

or this one..

http://static.thaivisa.com/forum/uploads/monthly_10_2014/post-220854-0-22160600-1412584233.jpg

Take your pick!

More and more confusing! the i-phone shown there is clearly not smashed up

What do the defence team have to say about this?

[StealthEnergiser]

Follow

Robert Holmes‏@riverview810

@riverview810 American Bar association standards for DNA testing...part 3 relevant

• Follow

  Robert Holmes‏@riverview810

  @riverview810 contrast with RTP Procedures....international standards..I think not

• Follow

  Robert Holmes‏@riverview810

  @IanYarwood_Law @terryfrd not just presentation of report. The results themselves are flawed..no stats which are needed to determine prob.

[NCFC]

I don't trust the story of the phone. We all know that there were photos of items of clothing scattered over the beach leaked out before the official police photos circulated on the web. The official photos showed the clothes in a neat pile minus some that were clearly present on the beach. They were placed as though Hannah and David might have taken them off themselves in order to get intimate. But this is clearly not the truth. The pre police photos would appear to show a struggle took place and that the clothes were ripped off the deceased while alive or dead. Someone got to the scene and changed it. No doubt they found a phone or two as well. Now why should we believe that the phone found at the B2's accommodation belonged David Miller when all the police have come up with is that the number provided by David's father matches? The phone that was found on the beach could have been anyone's phone. God knows the RTP had long enough to get their story together with the B2 conveniently silenced behind a glass screen with constant police presence when their lawyers were talking with them. When a phone gets smashed the information on the sim card is still available. Why didn't the police prove it was David's phone? Why no fingerprints? No fingerprints anywhere it seems. Did police say they didn't test the hoe for fingerprints?! Maybe it's time for police to take a few minutes now and look at that CCTV footage of the pier that they didn't think important last year. Surely they wouldn't have destroyed it ?

We know that David's iphone was in the possession of the B2 because they admitted it in court. They said they found it on an unlit beach in the middle of the night, and then asked a friend to destroy it when they heard of the murders. Suspicious behaviour, I suggest.

IMEI's are unique to the handset and David's father supplied the IMEI number from the UK which matched the number of the handset in the possession of the B2.

Therefore, we can be sure beyond all reasonable doubt that the police have proved the phone in the possession of the B2 belonged to David.

The B2 are the only people where there is hard evidence pointing to them being on the beach around the time of the murders. There's no evidence indicating anyone else was there. And in all the posts on all the threads in all the social media that surround this case I haven't seen any solid, irrefutable evidence pointing to anyone else being on the beach around the time of the murders. I would like to be proved wrong but in twelve months there really is nothing.